2020 (10) TMI 1166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2004-05. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2012 on the following substantial questions of law:   "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in annulling the assessments even when the said assessments were done in accordance with provisions Section 158-BC r.w.s 143(3) of I.T.Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified on facts and law to annulling block assessment order passed by the assessing authority even the rulings of this Hon'ble High Court in ITA NO.6005 of 2010 and 6006 of 2010 has not reached finality as SLP preferred against said or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by filing an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by the Order dated 11.02.2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short). The Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2012 inter alia by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 'Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Vandana Verma', (2011) 330 ITR 533 (ALL) held that Warrant of Authorization was issued jointly, however, the assessment has been made in individual capacity. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the Assessment framed under Section 153A of the Act is not maintainable. Accordingly, the order of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ition to produce the same. However, the Tribunal has proceeded on an incorrect factual premise. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. 7. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under:-   "12. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed from the record that the warrant of authorization dated 02.02.2007 was in the joint names of Divyashree Developers (P) Ltd., Chatur Realtors (P) Ltd., P. Shyamaraju, Umesh S. Raju, Bhaskar Raju and Smt. Arathi Raju. A copy of the said document i.e., warrant of authorization dated 02.02.2007 is available at page No.3 o....